[#16116] RCRchive shutting down — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi everyone --

22 messages 2008/04/03
[#16119] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/03

This is quite sad news, I feel that a mailing list does not offer all

[#16121] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16122] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#16123] issue tracking (Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16124] Re: issue tracking (Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down) — "Meinrad Recheis" <meinrad.recheis@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#16128] RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

60 messages 2008/04/03
[#16139] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:41:41PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#16143] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/04/03

On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Paul Brannan wrote:

[#16146] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16147] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@...> 2008/04/03

[#16149] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/03

Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:

[#16155] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — "Yemi I. D. Bedu" <yemi@...> 2008/04/03

Hello,

[#16158] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/03

Yemi I. D. Bedu wrote:

[#16175] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@...> 2008/04/04

On 4 Apr 2008, at 00:23, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#16194] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Chris Cummer <chris@...> 2008/04/04

On 4-Apr-08, at 3:05 AM, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

[#16195] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2008/04/04

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Chris Cummer <chris@postal-code.com> wrote:

[#16240] syntax request — "ry dahl" <ry@...>

Often times when one has many long arguments and orders them like this

42 messages 2008/04/06
[#16263] Re: syntax request — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...> 2008/04/07

[#16266] Re: syntax request — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/08

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Bill Kelly wrote:

[#16282] Re: syntax request — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/08

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0900, David A. Black wrote:

[#16290] Could someone confirm signal handling is broken on OSX? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I've raised this before, but no one replied. I'd like to double check

12 messages 2008/04/08

[#16359] design meeting — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

18 messages 2008/04/12

[#16397] Ruby 1.8.7-preview1 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Folks,

16 messages 2008/04/15

[#16482] Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi

32 messages 2008/04/22
[#16483] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/22

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:29AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

[#16484] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/22

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:

[#16487] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/22

Hi --

[#16488] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/22

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#16490] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/22

Hi --

[#16501] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — ts <decoux@...> 2008/04/23

Robert Dober wrote:

[#16507] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

50 messages 2008/04/23
[#16511] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16512] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/23

Hi --

[#16525] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16527] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/23

Hi --

[#16534] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Thomas Enebo <Thomas.Enebo@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16546] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/24

Hi --

[#16552] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@...> 2008/04/24

Or changing #send to private...or (insert progressive but code

[#16564] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/24

Jeremy McAnally wrote:

[#16567] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/24

Hi --

[#16570] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/24

Hi,

[#16531] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...> 2008/04/23

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:21 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

Re: [RCR] sandbox API

From: MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Date: 2008-04-30 19:28:02 UTC
List: ruby-core #16608
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:32:22 +0900, _why <why@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:06:05AM +0900, Tadashi Saito wrote:
>> I think eval(string) is <del>evil or</del> too ugly and takes more time
>> especially in 1.9.  It should take block instead of it.
> 
> The sandbox takes the "i" out of eval.  A block would be nice, too,
> except that I haven't figured out how to change the block's scope so
> that it can't reference anything unsafe from its original habitat.

I think it would be necessary to extract the block's parse tree and
use that to construct a new block within the context of the sandbox.
That would of course require that implementors keep the block parse
tree around...

The main downside with a string eval in this case is that the string
must be parsed each time.  Accordingly, avoiding that parsing overhead
would be the main benefit of using a block.  Beyond that, I'm not sure
I see much advantage.  Proxied method calls on wrapped objects are
realistically going to be the main communication method with sandboxes,
so that case needs to be optimized more than eval does.

-mental


In This Thread